"I'm glad to
see that Administrator Whitman is in Pennington announcing much-needed
watershed grants. The receiving organizations no doubt will use the funds
to extend the environmental fight," Holt said. "But Administrator
Whitman can't hide fact that under her watch the EPA is simultaneously
selling out our national commitment to environmental protection and putting
lives at risk. She and the Bush Administration are undermining decades
of clean water and clean air protections not to mention gutting the Superfund,
removing restrictions that prevent mountain-top dumping in our nation's
streams, and eliminating regulations that make mine companies clean up
mine-related pollution, just to name a few. A real watershed in environmental
policy occurred in 2001 when the Administration began rolling back environmental
gains that had taken decades to achieve."

Local governments,
states, drinking water suppliers, and the EPA have all acknowledged that
there is a tremendous funding gap - which will continue to grow - for
drinking water infrastructure funding necessary to protect the public
health. Although local governments provide more than 90% of the funding
for water and wastewater systems, federal investment is crucial. According
to the Wastewater Information Network, a coalition of local officials,
drinking water and wastewater service providers, and environmental and
health administrators, water and wastewater systems across the country
will need to invest a total of more than $23 billion of new money to meet
environmental and health standards in the Clean Water Act.

CLEAN AIR REQUIREMENTS
RELAXED

In one of the most
serious rollbacks in the history of the EPA, Administrator Whitman has
proposed relaxing New Source Review rules to make it easier for polluting
facilities to avoid upgrading to more environmentally responsible equipment
and technology.

Rep. Rush Holt today
sent a letter (see attached) to EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman
urging her agency to reconsider her proposed rule changes to the Clean
Air Act. Holt says Whitman's rule changes "will create gaping loopholes"
and "take steps backwards, not forwards, on clean air." Today
is the deadline for public comment on the proposed rule changes.

The proposed changes
relate specifically to New Source Review, an important part of the Clean
Air Act, which requires power plants, chemical factories, and other large
industrial facilities to adopt effective emission controls when expansions
or upgrades are made. Many of the plants regulated by New Source Review
are located in the Midwest. According to research conducted on behalf
of EPA, prevailing winds carry pollution from these plants into New Jersey
causing thousands of asthma attacks and hundreds of premature deaths of
New Jersey residents each year.

I came to Congress
five years ago to represent the people of the 12th District of New Jersey.
It is obvious that among the more important responsibilities I have in
representing my constituents is standing up for them when someone is making
them sick or killing them - the way air pollution is now.

I am referring to
a longstanding method used to fight this pollution - New Source Review
rules, an important part of the Clean Air Act that requires power plants,
chemical factories, and other large industrial facilities to adopt effective
emission controls when expansions or upgrades lead to increased pollution.
According to your agency, this has meant keeping 300 million tons of pollution
out of the atmosphere in areas that meet national air quality standards.

But enforcement has
been a significant issue for New Source Review. Plants have been avoiding
compliance by describing major upgrades as "routine maintenance."
The U.S. Justice Department has identified 51 plants in particular that
violated NSR rules. Their violations alone have caused between 5500 and
9000 premature deaths each year, according to Abt Associates, who has
done research for your agency. This includes between 200 and 304 premature
deaths in New Jersey.

Then we have the health
effects - between 3900 and 5700 asthma attacks caused by pollution from
these plants. Those who suffer from asthma, or who have children who do,
know how debilitating these attacks can be. We need to stand up for the
asthma sufferers whose conditions are being exacerbated. We also need
to stand up for people who have had a whole host of other respiratory
and circulatory problems worsened by air pollution.

New Jersey has made
significant efforts to clean up its air. But there is simply no way that
the state can adequately tackle this problem - New Jersey cannot control
the jet stream. Because prevailing winds carry pollution from plants in
the Midwest to the East Coast, much of the smog, soot, and fine particulates
that endanger the health of state residents do not come from in-state
sources.

That is why the federal
government needs to take an active role. This was the motivation behind
the 1970 Clean Air Act and the New Source Review rules. The Clean Air
Act has helped the country take major steps towards making the air we
breathe better for our health. Unfortunately, however, your proposed rules
will take steps backwards, not forwards, on clean air.

The proposed rule
changes, buried in convoluted regulatory language, will create gaping
loopholes in NSR protections. Facilities would be allowed to increase
the amount of pollution they emit if the cost of making a change is less
than a certain percentage of the cost of the entire facility. Thus companies
can easily make incremental changes to renovate a facility without triggering
NSR. And even if the cost of the upgrade does exceed the percentage trigger,
plants will still not need to implement pollution controls if the upgrade
consists of replacing existing equipment with new equipment performing
the same function, regardless of cost.

This is simply unconscionable.
NSR and other Clean Air Act provisions need to be made stronger, not weaker.
The reasons could not be any simpler - people are getting sick and dying.
So I must strongly disapprove of the proposed rules.

Thank you for taking
the time to consider my comments. I look forward to continuing to work
with the Agency to protect our environment.